User talk:'Arry Boy

Hi 'Arry Boy. Thank you for your polite message on my talk page. Your questions were:


 * can you please explain why you have taken out the following from the Millwall article: Keith Stevens: "Long serving and popular" How else would a player who choose to spend his entire career with one club be described? "Millwall's bitter rivals" bitter rivals is at the very least an understatement, we detest them them and they us, and what does "Citation Needed mean please?

Your best starting point would be to read up on two of Wikipedia's core policies: verifiability and maintaining a neutral point of view. To summarize these briefly (but please do read those links for full details):


 * Verifiability means that all information in a Wikipedia article must be a summary of an independent, reliable source. For example, if you believe that Keith Stevens is "long serving and popular", you can't add that to an article. But, if (for example) you could quote an article in The Guardian or The Sun that said that Stevens was "long serving and popular" you can add that to the article, as long as you properly cite the source so readers can verify it.


 * Maintaining a neutral point of view means that you can't write Wikipedia articles as if you were a fan. Present the facts of what happened, not your interpretation of them. So writing that "Millwall lost 2-1 to Arsenal" is okay, but writing "Millwall were robbed when by those bastard gunners" isn't okay.

Citation needed means that you need to provide a proper source for the preceding information, or it may get removed.

Hope that helps, Gwernol 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Weston
I removed this since its already in the relevant section (history of the FA Cup) and doesn't need duplicating. Valenciano (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to move the entire section to history of the fa cup as we currently have two notable achievements sections and it's confusing. I'll do it later tonight. Valenciano (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank
It's not that it's not recognised, there's just no need to use it on every mention of his name - there possibly is a case for including it in the first paragraph, which I don't think it is at the moment. Using ranks and titles throughout just reads very awkwardly, it's nothing personally against Sergeant Willets, we also don't apply academic titles such as Doctor or Professor (even at the start of titles), and even those of honour or nobility such as Sir or Lord will typically only be used at the start of an article and the subject will then be referred to by surname throughout. Apart from anything else there is a problem of consistency within an article, do you apply the highest rank held, or the one held at the point about which you are writing. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Appointed etc
I'm fully aware aware that "appointed" is the strictly correct terminology, once again though it's a matter of readability, it isn't good writing to repeat essentially the same phrase over and over again in the same article, so it's worth using a few synonyms, it's bad enough for ranks havig to write promoted every time, unless you can convenitently string a whole group of promotions together in a single sentence. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless it's such a common usage I think you're fighting a losing battle. A quick google test returns approx 60,900 results for "awarded the MBE", with a BBC result as the very first one.  Even "made a Sergeant" returns about 650 hits  (including one within the MOD website)  Still I'm not going to change it back, but then I'm not going to go and change all the various other articles I've used similar formulations on either.  I think perhaps it's worth bringing up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, on the issue of correctness, bear in mind taht the standard for naming articles is to use what the common English name is, not necessarily the "most correct" name.  David Underdown (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Millwall
"If you now accept that not every Millwall fan is a hooligan, why were you happy for that particular sentence, demonising all Millwall fans as hooligans, to stand unchallenged until now?"

Thank you for your message above. It is not a matter of being happy for the sentence to stand unchallenged until now at all. Perhaps if I explain how wikipedia works with regard to watchlists, as you seem to be expecting way too much of another user - Each user has a watchlist on their userpage where they can add any article. Then, any changes made on that article are listed in the users watchlist. I have literally hundreds of articles in my watchlist, sometimes I see edits sometimes I miss them as there are only so many edits that can appear at a time in the watchlist. The only reason I even got involved was because I saw the edit summaries where you quite rightly pointed out that not all Millwall fans are hooligans and the edit where another user reverted your changes and accused you in their edit summary of adding nonsense which it clearly wasn't and I thought I should restore at least part of your edit which was not nonsense at all. Simple as that, and I was actually backing you up. With regard to this, "If you now accept that not every Millwall fans is a hooligan....", no idea what you mean by "if you now accpet" as with respect, I have never said, nor implied nor even thought that every Millwall fan is a hooligan. Thanks and have fun. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, all sorted. To be honest I don't know why the other user said it was nonsense, an odd comment really. Hopefully they were just doing it quickly and mis-understood. If they come back and revert again I will also keep an eye out for it. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source after a very quick google search that backs up the 10,000 estimated figure and that there were supposed to be other London clubs involved. I am posting a link to it in another reply on the articles talk page. I am also sure that there are no doubt numerous other sources that would back up what you have said, but that is enough for now. It is from a British journalist writing an article for the Japan Times back in 2004 leading up to the FA Cup Final. I realise that it can get heated these discussions however, I would urge you to try and remain calm when responding to Lingvo9 as it won't really help having a go at them. I realise that you are "fighting your corner" in what is a content dispute and that it isn't easy to stay calm though. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye no worries I've done it myself a number of times. It is easy to say "stay calm" looking in from the outside but not easy to do! I have now posted the link as I said in the talk page of the article. This is the specific part of the article -

"In the local parlance, Millwall has "previous" and the occasion that is always used in evidence against it is the F.A. Cup tie at Luton on March 13, 1985. Luton refused Millwall's request to make the game all-ticket and during the day a disproportionate number of vehicles began arriving in Bedfordshire, ominously few bearing the visitors' colours. At the final whistle all hell let loose and the inadequate number of police and stewards could not cope as the pitch became a footballing battlefield. Thirty one people were arrested, many of whom turned out to be supporters of West Ham and Chelsea. The suspicion that it was as much an organized riot by outside sources as Millwall followers on the rampage was strengthened by the estimated 10,000 traveling supporters behind one goal -- double the southeast London club's average home gate at the time."

Now that is not from a football hooligan, or from any hooligan website or from anyone with a biased POV, it is from a British journalist who regularly writes for the Japan Times about football in England. Hopefully it will get a response as the source is a perfectly reliable one that can be used to state that there was an estimated 10,000 travelling supporters many of whom were fans of Chelsea and West Ham. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, following my comments and addition of the source on the talk page, I noticed that there had been no reply despite additional edits being made to the article so I was about to edit again anyway, but saw you got there before me. I just thought I should let you know though that I have amended it again, expanding it out from the source; and I have also removed the specific mentioning of each of the firms as words like "followers" etc will surely suffice especially when none of the firms are mentioned in the source. The journalist worded it very carefully I thought so that he used that word rather than fan or supporter in that context. I did also see a source that confirmed the attendance of 17,000 plus but can't remember what the website was now. However the Kenilworth Road article does confirm that one stand, the Kenilworth Stand, was a large terraced stand at that time with a capacity of 16,000. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or the talk page again since my last edit and comment, (partly because I want a rest from it!). It is difficult though to deal with someone who refuses to take on board what others are saying and refuses to compromise at all and who derides a clearly reliable source as being unreliable. We will just have to all wait and see what happens as this clearly isn't going to get sorted. I have tried being reasonable and to be the person in the middle so to speak, but when someone states that a source is "very unreliable" when the source is actually a top sports journalist at the Daily Telegraph writing a very detailed article about the history of Millwall FC for the Japan Times and refuses to accept it is valid, then there is not a lot that can be done, other than to take this to Admins which will have to happen in the end. What I have done though is tried to make contact with the journalist concerned, Christopher Davies, as the article is very specific, and I wonder if perhaps he had access to this report, "The Luton Town Members Scheme Final Report" which is still available but it costs something like £8 to buy. But if he gets back to me then at least we will all know where his information came from. There are also numerous other online articles which discuss the "infiltration" (my word) of other London clubs followers that day. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More "polite" words for being helpful...
Hi there, ARRY BOY, VASCO from Portugal,

Regarding NEIL HARRIS (footballer)'s article and its edits (your message included): first i thought the "caps" meant his caps for Millwall, but then, reading closely i realized the "watch the caps sunshine!" meant nothing more than the caps as in capital letters... What is the matter with the people at Wikipedia with that issue? 5th or 6th time i get that warning! In my book, writing in caps can mean anything but shouting (stressing a point or that word in particular, etc, etc).

I was only trying, in HARRIS' article, to arrange article in its tense, because "...his total goals record for Millwall now stands at..." will become eventually outdated. In other words, i was trying to help, as i have done since 22-10-2006, and have been accused of: writing in caps (and as in your case, not pointed out all that politely ("Watch the caps sunshine")), adding defamatory info and vandalizing (please check my edit history to see that i am THE OPPOSITE).

Have a nice week, from Portugal,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Response on "CAPS"
Hi again ARRY,

Thanks too for your message and cooperation, good teamwork we did there, my friend! Misunderstandings happen all the time, take care...

From Portugal with regards,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

your page
No problem :). Ironholds 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism on my Usertalk
Thanks so much for reverting that, regards, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Unfortunately, lyricwiki is known to violate copyright, so we must verify that the lyrics they list are released into public domain or under GFDL in order to use them. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)